January 31st, 2008
Learn How to Protect Your Family from the Worst of the Web!
-
The web pages actually at the top of Google have only one thing clearly in common: good writing. Don’t let the usual SEO sacred cows and bugbears, such as PageRank, frames, and JavaScript, distract you from the importance of good content.
I was recently struck by the fact that the top-ranking web pages on Google are consistently much better written than the vast majority of what one reads on the web. Yet traditional SEO wisdom has little to say about good writing. Does Google, the world’s wealthiest media company, really only display web pages that meet arcane technical criteria? Does Google, like so many website owners, really get so caught up in the process of the algorithm that it misses the whole point?
Apparently not.
Most Common On-the-Page Website Content Success Factors
Whatever the technical mechanism, Google is doing a pretty good job of identifying websites with good content and rewarding them with high rankings.
I looked at Google’s top five pages for the five most searched-on keywords, as identified by WordTracker on June 27, 2005. Typically, the top five pages receive an overwhelming majority of the traffic delivered by Google.
The web pages that contained written content (a small but significant portion were image galleries) all shared the following features:
Updating: frequent updating of content, at least once every few weeks, and more often, once a week or more.
Spelling and grammar: few or no errors. No page had more than three misspelled words or four grammatical errors. Note: spelling and grammar errors were identified by using Microsoft Word’s check feature, and then ruling out words marked as misspellings that are either proper names or new words that are simply not in the dictionary. Does Google use SpellCheck? I can already hear the scoffing on the other side of this computer screen. Before you dismiss the idea completely, keep in mind that no one really does know what the 100 factors in Google’s algorithm are. But whether the mechanism is SpellCheck or a better shot at link popularity thanks to great credibility, or something else entirely, the results remain the same.
Paragraphs: primarily brief (1-4 sentences). Few or no long blocks of text.
Lists: both bulleted and numbered, form a large part of the text.
Sentence length: mostly brief (10 words or fewer). Medium-length and long sentences are sprinkled throughout the text rather than clumped together.
Contextual relevance: text contains numerous terms related to the keyword, as well as stem variations of the keyword. The page may contain the keyword itself few times or not at all.
SEO “Do’s” and “Don’ts”
A hard look at the results slaughters a number of SEO bugbears and sacred cows.
PageRank. The median PageRank was 4. One page had a PageRank of 0. Of course, this might simply be yet another demonstration that the little PageRank number you get in your browser window is not what Google’s algo is using. But if you’re one of those people who attaches an overriding value to that little number, this is food for thought.
Frames. The top two web pages listed for the most searched-on keyword employ frames. Frames may still be a bad web design idea from a usability standpoint, and they may ruin your search engine rankings if your site’s linking system depends on them. But there are worse ways you could shoot yourself in the foot.
JavaScript-formatted internal links. Most of the websites use JavaScript for their internal page links. Again, that’s not the best web design practice, but there are worse things you could do.
Keyword optimization. Except for two pages, keyword optimization was conspicuous by its absence. In more than half the web pages, the keyword did not appear more than three times, meaning a very low density. Many of the pages did not contain the keyword at all. That may just demonstrate the power of anchor text in inbound links. It also may demonstrate that Google takes a site’s entire content into account when categorizing it and deciding what page to display.
Sub-headings. On most pages, sub-headings were either absent or in the form of images rather than text. That’s a very bad design practice, and particularly cruel to blind users. But again, Google is more forgiving.
Links: Most of the web pages contained ten or more links; many contain over 30, in defiance of the SEO bugbears about “link popularity bleeding.” Moreover, nearly all the pages contained a significant number of non-relevant links. On many pages, non-relevant links outnumbered relevant ones. Of course, it’s not clear what benefit the website owners hope to get from placing irrelevant links on pages. It has been a proven way of lowering conversion rates and losing visitors. But Google doesn’t seem to care if your website makes money.
Originality: a significant number of pages contained content copied from other websites. In all cases, the content was professionally written content apparently distributed on a free-reprint basis. Note: the reprint content did not consist of content feeds. However, no website consisted solely of free-reprint content. There was always at least a significant portion of original content, usually the majority of the page.
Recommendations
Make sure a professional writer, or at least someone who can tell good writing from bad, is creating your site’s content, particularly in the case of a search-engine optimization campaign. If you are an SEO, make sure you get a pro to do the content. A shocking number of SEOs write incredibly badly. I’ve even had clients whose websites got fewer conversions or page views after their SEOs got through with them, even when they got a sharp uptick in unique visitors. Most visitors simply hit the “back” button when confronted with the unpalatable text, so the increased traffic is just wasted bandwidth.
If you write your own content, make sure that it passes through the hands of a skilled copyeditor or writer before going online.
Update your content often. It’s important both to add new pages and update existing pages. If you can’t afford original content, use free-reprint content.
Distribute your content to other websites on a free-reprint basis. This will help your website get links in exchange for the right to publish the content. It will also help spread your message and enhance your visibility. Fears of a “duplicate content penalty” for free-reprint content (as opposed to duplication of content within a single website) are unjustified.
In short, if you have a mature website that is already indexed and getting traffic, you should consider making sure the bulk of your investment in your website is devoted to its content, rather than graphic design, old-school search-engine optimization, or linking campaigns.
About the Author
Joel Walsh is the owner, founder and head-writer of UpMarket Content. To read more about website content best practices, get a consultation with Mr. Walsh, or get a sample page for your site at no charge, go to the SEO website content page: Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
January 30th, 2008
Learn How to Protect Your Family from the Worst of the Web!
-
If you don’t believe Google’s Duplicate Content Filter exists, I have Dramatic Proof their Internet content filter exists and it’s very effective.
On July 5, 2005 I published an article entitled “7 Top Ways to Avoid Link Theft” which was picked up and included as content on other websites.
Before the article was released I checked on Google whether any results already existed for the exact phrase “7 Top Ways to Avoid Link Theft” and there were no listings for that term.
Over the next few weeks I monitored through a search query on Google how many results appeared in Google for the title of my article. One week after publication there were 6,760 results listed in Google, a week later it was 14,100 and it reached a peak of 17,000 results by July 26, 2005.
4 weeks after publication the results in Google had fallen slightly to 16,600.
Almost 6 weeks after publication the results listed in Google had fallen to 44.
In a matter of less than two weeks the number of search results on Google.com for the title of my article had gone from 16,600 to just 44.
In case you’re thinking this is because all these other websites dropped by article and replaced it with other content I should add that a search on Yahoo.com on the same day still showed 14,300 results for my article.
What’s more of these 44 results on Google, more than half consist of listings from the same websites. In other words some sites have the same article duplicated on different pages on their website.
So Google’s Internet Content Filter is not used to remove duplicate listings from the preferred websites it chooses to keep in the search results.
On August 28th, 2005 8 weeks after first publication I distributed the article again to a new list of article sites to repeat the process. After 6 weeks the same article had reached a peak of 5,620 results on Google. Less than 2 weeks later the results had fallen to 217.
For me this was dramatic proof that Google’s Duplicate Internet Content Filter is active and very effective. If you’re wondering if other major search engines have a duplicate content filter I can confirm that Yahoo certainly does. The same article which was once listed on 14,300 sites on Yahoo, has fallen to 344 over the same time period.
From these results it would seem Google takes about 6 to 8 weeks to remove duplicate content using its Duplicate Internet Content Filter.
But the question remaining is just how does Google decide which out of over 16,000 results does it keep and which does it reject?
I have witnessed situations where my own articles appear in results on other websites, but are not listed in the results for my own website.
So clearly Google does not take into account who the originator and author of the original article was when deciding which sites will remain in its search results.
It also seems to have nothing to do with where Google first finds the article.
Some articles I have published to my website for several weeks before releasing them for distribution to other websites.
In that time the Google spiders have visited my site several times and Google has had enough time to work out that the article was first found on my site.
It would be interesting to see if it’s possible to work out what factors Google is using in its Internet Content Filter to decide which results to keep in its listing and which ones to remove. But that’s for another article.
About the Author
Tony Simpson is a Web Designer and Search Engine Optimizer who brings a touch of reality to building a Web Business. A related report on article distribution is at: http://www.webpageaddons.com/stp/announcerclaim Article Announcer Review - Testing Product Claims
January 29th, 2008
Learn How to Protect Your Family from the Worst of the Web!
-
The Internet is one of the greatest inventions of all time. Parental Internet Control will protect our loved ones from internet filth like pornography and hate material just a click away. The fact that every stranger in the world has access to your child, right in your own home is scary enough. exercising some kind of Internet Control will protect the people you love from the tens of thousands of troubling sites on the Internet.
Although nothing can replace a well-informed parent that takes an active part in their children’s online activities, Internet Filtering Software provides a strong, additional layer of defense which gives parents an added measure of control and further peace of mind.
With a lot of Internet filtering software choices available, researching and choosing the Internet filter that’s right for your family can be complex and time-consuming, and that s where we can help.
At www.parental-web-control.com you’ll find articles, and side-by-side comparisons and comprehensive reviews on Internet Filtering Software that will help you make a fast, informed decision.
What makes a great Internet filter software solution?
Though the perfect Internet Filter does not exist in today’s marketplace, there are a number of great solutions depending on what the family needs are. Here is a list of attributes of good filtering software.
Easy to Use How easy it to install the product?, Is it easily set up, and easy to use? Is it easy to find the functions you are looking for? Is it easy to customize the filter settings?
Effective at filtering Does the web filtering software strike a good balance between filtering objectionable material and non object ional - not filter too much? The ability to customize sensitivity of filtering by each individual family member is important as well.
Activity reports Parents should be able to see what their individual family member has been doing on the computer. This would include viewing where they have been on the Internet, what has been going on in chat rooms, and activity based on other functions within the Internet filtering application.
Foreign language filtering One of the tricks that teenagers have found to bypass Internet filters is to type in the foreign language equivalent of certain keywords. By typing in the French, Spanish, or German versions of the word “sex” or “girl” for example, you can easily bypass many filters to view objectionable content.
Individual profiles Can you create a profile for each family member with different filtering rules?
Notification capabilities Can you be notified at work or at home that un-authorized access or blocking is occurring?
Negligible response times Does the Internet filter allow you to access the Internet without noticeable slowdown?
Remote management Can you change settings, change rules, and change profiles from work or while on vacation without the installed software? The correct use of Internet filters in harmony with parental controls can make the Internet a safe and wonderful experience for the family.
About the Author
Please visit to http://www.parental-web-control.com for more articles with side-by-side comparisons and comprehensive reviews on Internet Filtering Software that will help you make a fast, informed decisions.
January 28th, 2008
Learn How to Protect Your Family from the Worst of the Web!
-
So What Makes a Good Spam Filter Anyway?
By Alan Hearnshaw
Spam Filters. Most of us know we need one. Some of know we need a better one, but how many stop to think what actually makes a good spam filter in the first place?
This is not just a rhetorical question. It is a question that many users and many developers - do not ask, and consequently, goes unanswered.
Maybe this could be better answered by defining here the qualities of the perfect spam filter. We ll call our perfect spam filter the SpamSplatter 3000 . Here are some of the defining qualities of SpamSplatter 3000
1. It requires zero interaction from the user.
2. It produces zero false positives (good messages identified as bad) and zero false negatives (bad messages identified as good).
3. It is transparent that is, you only ever see good messages and never need even be aware that spam exists.
That s it. Not much of a shopping list is it?
Of course, SpamSplatter 3000 hasn t been invented yet (and if it does, I want a piece of the action), but it does give us a frame of reference when looking for the best filter we can find.
Let s take each point in turn:
It requires zero interaction from the user
There are two kinds of filters that come near to this ideal currently: Bayesian Filters and Community Filters.
Bayesian filters strip messages down to small word bites , or tokens and maintain a database containing lists of good and bad tokens. When a new message is encountered, the filter strips this message down to tokens, compares it to the database, and applies a formula based on the British scientist Alan Bayes formula for probability calculation.
Over time, the Bayesian filter learns the characteristics of spam messages.
Community Filters simply work on a voting system whereby every user that receives a spam message votes it as spam. This information is stored on a central server and when enough votes are received the message is banned from all users in the community.
As can be seen, the user interaction from these types of filters is mainly limited to two button operation correcting wrongly identified messages and the more accurate the filter, the less those buttons are used.
OK, so that s pretty good. Not exactly zero interaction, but if the filter is accurate enough, then it should be pretty near. That brings us to point two:
It produces zero false positives or negatives
This is the area in which most spam filter development is concentrating and things are getting pretty good nowadays. It is not at all unusual to see an efficient modern filter achieve accuracy of 96% or better. It is, of course, far better to have a false negative than a false positive if you are ever going to tear yourself away from the killed mail folder!
Of course, by definition, community filters cannot reach 100% accuracy as someone has to be getting the spam to be voting it as such!
Theoretically, a Bayesian filter may be able to eventually get quite close to 100% accuracy, so at least there is hope there.
Content based filters (those that look for certain words, phrases or other indicators in a message to identify it as spam), will almost certainly not get much higher accuracy figures than the best of them can achieve today. Adapting to changing spam requires new filters to be created on an ongoing basis.
And finally, we come to the holy grail of spam filtering:
It is transparent
Strangely enough, not enough work seems to be done in trying to achieve this goal. Some of the best filters on the market today identify spam with impressive accuracy and then simply place them in a killed mail folder for your later perusal.
Now, forgive me if I m missing something here, but isn t the point to save you having to wade through the junk mail? Isn t that what you bought the filter for? With the SpamSplatter 3000 , you don t need to do that.
As we haven t achieved 100% accuracy yet (and probably never will), the only way to free us from checking the killed mail folder is a challenge/response system. This is where a message is automatically sent back to the sender requiring them to take some action for their message to actually be delivered.
Some systems tend to go overboard with the challenge/response system. These systems - often called Whitelist systems - block messages from anyone that isn t in the user s friends list. Guaranteed 100% effective, but too drastic a measure for most users.
Now, it seems that the most intelligent use of this system would be to send challenges only to messages that were flagged as questionable . Good message can be delivered, definite spam can be deleted and questionable ones would earn themselves a challenge message.
So, to sum up, let s rewrite the qualities of our perfect filter and get a shopping list of what to look for while we wait for the SpamSplatter 3000 to arrive:
1. Simple, minimal setup and maintenance.
2. Extremely low rate of false positives and as few false negatives as possible.
3. A transparent fail-safe mechanism whereby the victims of those false positives can force the message through to you.
It s simple really. Now, who s going to build me this SpamSplatter 3000 ?
Alan Hearnshaw is the owner of http://www.WhichSpamFilter.com, a site which provides weekly in-depth spam filter reviews, user help and guidance and a community forum.
alan@whichspamfilter.com
About the Author
Alan Hearnshaw is a computer programmer and the owner of http://www.WhichSpamFilter.com, a site which provides weekly in-depth spam filter reviews, user help and guidance and a community forum.